Next Article in Journal
Reactive and Proactive Aggression among Children and Adolescents: A Latent Profile Analysis and Latent Transition Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Cardiovascular Function in Childhood Leukemia Survivors: The Role of the Right Heart
Previous Article in Special Issue
Two Models of the Development of Social Withdrawal and Social Anxiety in Childhood and Adolescence: Progress and Blind Spots
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/children9111732
Review Report
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Pilot Feasibility Study of an Intensive Summer Day Camp Intervention for Children with Selective Mutism

Children 2022, 9(11), 1732; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111732
by Danielle Haggerty 1, John S. Carlson 2,* and Aimee Kotrba 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Children 2022, 9(11), 1732; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111732
Submission received: 28 September 2022 / Revised: 29 October 2022 / Accepted: 8 November 2022 / Published: 11 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anxiety Disorders in Children)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you very much for the opportunity to read your paper. I have only one but important recommendation. Your research sample is very small. For this reason, I would avoid using percentages. The data can be interpreted more like in qualitative research, as percentages (rates) are misleading in such small numbers.

Author Response

Reviewer 1: Your research sample is very small. For this reason, I would avoid using percentages. The data can be interpreted more like in qualitative research, as percentages (rates) are misleading in such small numbers.

Response to Reviewer 1 Feedback: We have made these changes throughout the manuscript and greatly appreciate this feedback as we fully agree that the use of percentages when working with small sample sizes can lead to misleading interpretations.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

It is good research to promote the social inclusion of children with different abilities. A good theoretical foundation, adequate work methodology and coherent discussion were established. Authors are encouraged to materialize the research projection.

 

Some considerations.

1. Define abbreviation “AB” (line 14).

2. It is strange that a statistical analysis section has not been included. It should be included to describe the type of analysis and programs used (it should be written at the end of the "materials and methods" section).

3. It should be indicated in table 2 if there were significant differences between the subscales.

4. Statistical significance asterisks are missing in Table 3.

5. Do the authors see any strength of the study? Using validated instruments is a strength. What do you think? (section “limitations”). Some research strengths should be included.

6. Complete with information on the ethics committee that approved the study, consents for parents or guardians, and assents for children (“Institutional Review Board Statement” section).

 

Thanks.

Author Response

Thank you for the very helpful feedback. Please see the attached cover letter for a summary of how your feedback helped to improve our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop